Stephen
Terry, Director
Contrary
Passages?
Commentary
for the November 26, 2022, Sabbath School Lesson
"Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we
will all be changed---in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and
we will be changed.."
1
Corinthians 15:51-52, NIV
There are many contradictions in
scripture, and there are two basic responses to those contradictions founded on
two different definitions of inspiration. One approach, favored by apologists,
is to deny that scripture has contradictions. This is based on the belief that
inspiration eliminates those contradictions because it only produces truth and
truth does not contradict itself. Of necessity then, the apologist must search
for ways to disarm the contradiction through attempts at harmonization. Because
they contrive harmonies out of contradiction and truth does not contradict, it
is assumed that the harmony is the true explanation as opposed to a straightforward
reading of the text. At times, this may be relevant, but when used to explain
pre-determined dogma in lieu of revisiting that dogma it can stifle spiritual
development. This position is similar to believing that the pioneers or founders
figured all of this out, so there is no need to revisit "settled truth." Therefore,
any further discussion is unnecessary and heretical. The apologist's approach
to faith is primarily didactic.
Theologians, on the other hand,
recognize that scripture has contradictions, but are relatively unconcerned
about it. They have a view of inspiration that allows for the imperfect vessels
charged with recording that inspiration. God may inspire, but the writer must interpret
that inspiration within the context of their experience and understanding. For
example, how might a bronze or iron age writer describe Hiroshima or Nagasak? How would they describe an Abrams tank or an A-10
Warthog? They would have very little in their experience that could help them
shape an adequate description. This deficiency contributes to the difficulty in
interpreting prophetic books like Daniel or Revelation. However, it is not only
their lack of contextual experience. Our own contributes to the misunderstanding
as well. We are also limited by what we know when we are informed about what is
to come. A theologian recognizes this imperfection inherent in the text as well
as our imperfect ability to adequately understand the more esoteric passages,
let alone understanding God himself in all of his iterations. Discussion is
essential and indicative of a search for truth and growth. The theologian's
approach to faith is primarily dialectical.
Some very clear examples of contradictions
may be found in the Old Testament. For instance, in Proverbs we are told not to
answer a fool according to his folly, and then in the very next verse, we are told
to answer a fool according to his folly.[i]
While assuredly a contradiction, this does not trouble me any more than some
modern proverbs. As an example, we say that many hands make light work when we
want help with something, but when people are getting in the way we say that
too many cooks spoil the soup. These maxims also contradict one another as written
but are contextually applied despite the contradiction. Another contradiction
can be seen in the incident regarding David numbering Israel. In one instance
we are told that God incited him to do so,[ii]
but in another, we are told that Satan was the instigator.[iii]
Because I do not see everything in the Bible as literally true, I can accept
the imperfection of those writing these accounts as verified by such
contradictions. Even apologists have a very difficult time explaining how both accounts
can be literally true. Now that we understand that such contradictions exist,
we are now open to examining contradictions about death and dying in the scriptures.
As we have been sharing already
this quarter, Paul is very direct in stating that the dead remain dead until
the last trump sounds at the Parousia and the dead in Christ rise to meet him
in the air and those who are yet alive will join with them to meet Christ.[iv] Unfortunately,
the majority of the Christian denominations do not wish to accept that idea and
prefer instead to preach every Christian immediately into heaven upon death. As
evidence they will cite the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.[v] In
that parable, Lazarus lives the life of a poor beggar at the rich man's gate.
The rich man treated him with disdain while enjoying his wealth and luxuries.
Eventually they both die, and Lazarus goes to heaven and the rich man to the
fiery torments of Hades. The point of the parable is that there is accountability
for how we treat one another in this life. It is the same point as the Parable
of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew, chapter 25.[vi] This
is the purpose of parables to make a particular point. But some want to stretch
parables well beyond that limit. In the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus,
they want to make it about unconditional immortality, that when we die, we don't
really die, we simply change to another plane of existence. But we don't
realize that in distorting the purpose of the parable we create meanings
contrary to other parts of scripture, such as Paul's statements in Corinthians.
Some apologists have tried to remedy the contradiction they have created by
stating that people go to heaven when they die and then jump back in their
bodies when Jesus returns again. The Bible never makes such a claim, but this
is the problem when we contrive a meaning from a parable that was never
intended. If we did the same with the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, we
would be going around proclaiming that when Jesus returns, we will all turn
into literal sheep and goats.
This unconditional immortality idea
derives from a source many are not familiar with. In the very beginning, the
first lie recorded in the Bible was said at the Tree of the Knowledge of Good
and Evil in the Garden of Eden. Eve was told, "You shall not surely die." This
was in direct opposition to what God had told the first couple. Instead, they found
that once they rejected God's warning and ate the fruit of that tree, they did
indeed begin to die. Sensing that things had changed and ashamed of their
rejection of God's warning, they hid from him. All these many years later, we
still do not want to accept the idea that we die. Instead, we entertain the
idea that no matter how we live in relationship to God our life never ends because
we have within us a soul that cannot perish. This is the sentiment sung of in
the bluegrass hymn "Where the Soul of Man Never Dies." But if we look at
Creation, the story where this whole misunderstanding began, we see something
often overlooked. Many translations say that God breathed the breath of life
into some dirt he had formed, and man became a "living soul." In other words, a
living human does not possess a soul. A living human is a soul. We see this
reflected in old nursery rhymes like "Old King Cole was a merry, old soul."
They were not talking about something inside of him. They were talking about
him as a complete person. Recognizing the problem this creates for those who believe
in unconditional immortality and who want to preach everyone immediately to
their reward upon death, more modern translators have rendered it "living being"
or "living person" in order to support their denominational dogma regarding the
state of the dead. This is the problem with translating the Bible. Eisegesis is
often an irresistible temptation. When faced either with an ambiguity or a text
that can be construed unfavorably to one's accepted understanding, it is so
easy to render the text more favorably for that perspective. This is especially
the case when working with a translation committee that also sees things with a
similar perspective.
Another example of textual
misuse in support of the idea of unconditional immortality that necessitates
going immediately to heaven or hell upon death is found in the words of Jesus
to the thief on the cross.[vii] According
to several translations, Jesus tells the thief, "Today, you will be with me in
paradise." The implication is that the thief will die and immediately enter
heaven. But there are several problems with this. The first is the placement of
the punctuation. There is no punctuation in the original Greek text. Therefore,
the passage could just as easily read that Jesus tells the thief today, "You
will be with me in paradise." In other words, the meaning here is ambiguous. Unfortunately,
when faced with ambiguity, translators tend to want to clear up the ambiguity
by rendering the text in a manner that conforms to their denomination's dogma. Hence
the quotation marks before "Today," and the comma after. This is despite Jesus telling
Mary on Sunday that he had not yet ascended to heaven, so the thief could not
possibly have been with him in heaven on Friday.[viii]
This is one reason there are so
many translations today. When a translation is ambiguous or even hostile to
denominational dogma, the first response is to call in the apologists to
explain why it is being rendered incorrectly. Then, eventually, a new translation
will be made that is more supportive of accepted doctrines and make it all the easier
to identify heresies and root out the deniers among us. But this misses the
point. Repeatedly the Bible says we will die, but we don't have to if we admit
our error and return to fellowship with God. The opposing view, expressed by the
serpent in the garden is "You won't die. You are godlike." Which view we accept
makes all the difference.